Sunday, February 24, 2008

Fidel Castro on Czechoslovakia in 1968

Two speeches by Fidel Castro on August 23rd and 24th 1968, attacking the "counter-revolutionary" anti-Stalinist movement in Czechoslovakia and supporting the USSR's invasion. To the dismay of the "Mandelite" Fourth International, which to this day venerates Che Guevara (who died in 1967), the Cuban regime put itself firmly in the camp of Russian imperialism fighting to crush the organs of democratic working-class power that had emerged in Czechoslovakia.

August 23, 1968 - Excerpts from Cuban Premier Castro's speech in defense of Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia are given below. In his speech, Premier Castro criticized the Soviet leadership for not giving more aid to defeat the counter-revolution - in other countries as well as Czechoslovakia. But he did not, as some social democrats contend, give merely "critical support" to the action of the Red Armies.

Right here, I wish to make the first important affirmation: we considered that Czechoslovakia was moving toward a counter-revolutionary situation. Toward capitalism and into the arms of imperialism.

So this defines our first position in relation to the specific fact of the action taken by a group of socialist countries. That is, we consider that it was absolutely necessary, at all cost, in one way or another, to prevent this eventuality from taking place. ...

Discussion of the form is not, in the final analysis, the most fundamental factor. The essential point to be accepted, or not accepted, is whether or not the socialist camp could allow a political situation to develop which would lead to the breaking away of a socialist country, to its falling into the arms of imperialism. And our point of view is that it is not permissible and that the socialist camp has a right to prevent this in one way or another. I would like to begin by making it clear that we look upon this fact as an essential one. ...

A real liberal fury was unleashed; a whole series of political slogans in favor of the formation of opposition parties began to develop, in favor of open anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist theses, such as the thesis that the Party should cease to play the role which the Party plays within socialist society and begin to play the role there of a guide, supervising some things but, above all, exerting a sort of spiritual leadership. In short, that the reins of power should cease to be in the hands of the Communist Party.

The revision of certain fundamental postulates to the effect that a socialist regime is a transition regime from socialism to communism, a governmental form known as the dictatorship of the proletariat. This means a government where power is wielded in behalf of one class and against the former exploiting classes by virtue of which in a revolutionary process political rights, the right to carry on political activities -- whose objective is precisely to struggle against the essence and the raison d'etre of socialism - cannot be granted to the former exploiters.

A series of slogans began to be put forward and in fact certain measures were taken such as the establishment of the bourgeois "freedom" of the press. This means that the counter-revolution and the exploiters, the very enemies of socialism, were granted the right to speak and write freely against socialism.As a matter of fact, a process of seizure of the principal information media by the reactionary elements began to develop. As regards foreign policy, a whole series of slogans of open rapprochement toward capitalist concepts and theses and of rapprochement towards the West appeared...

On many occasions the imperialists have publicly stated what their policy is in relation to the socialist countries of Eastern Europe. And in Congress, in the press, they always talk about encouraging the liberal tendencies and even about promoting, of making available, some selective economic aid and of using every means of contributing to creating an opposition to socialism there. The imperialists are carrying out a campaign, not only in Czechoslovakia, but in all the countries of Eastern Europe, even in the Soviet Union.

Opinion on InterventionAugust 24, 1968

I wish to quickly make the first important statement that we consideredCzechoslovakia to be heading toward a counterrevolutionary situation,toward capitalism and into the arms of imperialism. This is the operativeconcept in our first position toward the specific fact of the action takenby a group of socialist countries. That is, we consider that it wasunavoidable to prevent this from happening - at any cost, in one way oranother.

Of course, let us not become impatient, because we propose to analyze thisin line with our ideas. Discussing the form is not really the mostfundamental thing. The essential thing, whether we accept it or not, iswhether the socialist bloc could permit the development of a politicalsituation which lead to the breakdown of a socialist country and its fallinto the arms of imperialism. From our viewpoint, it is not permissible andthe socialist bloc has the right to prevent it in one way or another.

We first wish to begin by establishing what our opinion is about thisessential matter. Now, it is not enough to explain simply thatCzechoslovakia was heading toward a counterevolutionary situation and thatit had to be stopped. It is not enough to conclude simply that the onlyalternative was to prevent it and nothing more. We must analyze the causesand determine the factors which made possible and necessary such adramatic, drastic, and painful remedy. What are the factors which requireda step unquestionably involving a violation of legal principles and ofinternational standards, which have often served as shields for peoplesagainst injustices and are so highly regarded in the world?

What is not appropriate here is to say that the sovereignty of theCzechoslovak state was not violated. That would be fiction and a lie. Theviolation was flagrant, and on this we are going to talk about the effecton sovereignty, and on legal and political principles. From the legalviewpoint, it cannot be justified. This is quite clear. In our judgment,the decision on Czechoslovakia can be explained only from the politicalviewpoint and not from a legal viewpoint. Frankly, it has absolutely nolegality.

What are the circumstances that have permitted a remedy of this nature, aremedy which places in a difficult situation the entire world revolutionarymovement, a remedy which constitutes a really traumatic situation for anentire people - as is the present case in Czechoslovakia - a remedy whichimplies that an entire nation has to pass through the most unpleasantcircumstances of seeing the country occupied by armies of other countries,although they are armies of the socialist countries. A situation in whichmillions of beings of a country have to see themselves today in the tragiccircumstance of electing and choosing either to be passive toward thesecircumstances and this event--which so much brings to mind previousepisodes - or to struggle in comradeship with pro-Yankee agents and spies,the enemies of socialism, the agents of West Germany, and all that fascistand reactionary rabble that in the heat of these circumstances will try topresent itself as champions of the sovereignty, patriotism, and freedom ofCzechoslovakia?

Logically, for the Czechoslovak people this experience and this factconstitute a better and tragic situation. Therefore, it is not enoughsimply to conclude that it has arisen as an inexorable necessity and even,if you wish, as an unquestionable obligation of the socialist countries toprevent such events from happening. [One must inquire] what are the cases,the factors, and the circumstances that brought forth - after 20 years ofcommunism in Czechoslovakia - a group of persons whose names do not evenappear anywhere, and this petition directed to other countries of thesocialist camp, asking them to send their armies to prevent the triumph ofthe counterrevolution in Czechoslovakia and the triumph of the intriguesand conspiracies of the imperialist countries interested in breakingCzechoslovakia from the community of socialist countries?

Could it be imagined, gentlemen, that at the end of 20 years of communismin our country - of communist revolution, of socialist revolution--thatunder any circumstances it could happen that a group of honestrevolutionaries in this country, terrified at the prospects of an advanceor, better said, of a retrogression toward counterrevolutionary positionsand imperialism, would see the need of asking the aid of friendly armies toprevent such a situation from occurring?

What would have remained of the communist consciousness of this people?What would have remained of the revolutionary consciousness of this people,of the dignity of this people, of the revolutionary morale of this people?What would have remained of all those things that mean for us essentiallythe revolution if such circumstances should one day arise?

But no circumstances of that kind will ever occur in our country. First,because we believe that it is a duty and fundamental responsibility ofthose who direct a revolution to prevent deformations of such a nature thatmight make possible such circumstances. Secondly, gentlemen, for anunquestionably practical reason and not only a moral elemental reason,because we could ask if it would be worth the trouble if, after 20 years,to survive a revolution one had to resort to such procedures. And also, fora very simple practical reason: who would false personalities of thiscountry ask to send armies? The only armies that we have in our vicinityare the Yankee army and the armies of the puppets allied with the Yankeeimperialists, the because we are too alone in this part of the world forthere ever to exist the most remote possibility of saving this revolutionby asking aid of allied armies.

And it must be said that I do not know anyone capable of having enoughshame to do such a thing if they had the need and opportunity to do it,because what kind of communists would we be and what kind of communistrevolution would this be if at the end of 20 years we found ourselveshaving to do such a thing to save it?

Always, when we have thought about foreign aid, we have never had the ideaof foreign aid to fight against the imperialist soldiers and against theimperialist armies. I simply analyze these facts because I know that,legally, our people are concerned with an explanation of these concepts.Such things are not in our idea of the revolution.

I do not think that a person can justify the appeal of high-rankingpersons, because the justification can only be the political fact initself - that Czechoslovakia was marching toward a counterrevolutionarysituation and this was seriously affecting the entire socialist community.And besides, there is no lack of figleaves of any kind. It is the politicalfact in itself, with all its consequences and all its importance. As wewere saying, recognizing that and nothing else is simply enough.

Or if it is obligatory, it is elementary to draw from this most bitterexperience all the political conclusions. And as it is possible, we repeat:In these circumstances, an analysis must be made of all the factors. Forthe communist movement, there is the unavoidable duty of investigatingdeeply the causes leading to such a situation, a situation inconceivablefor us, the Cuban revolutionaries. If such action is impossible for usCuban revolutionaries - we who saw the necessity for carrying out thisrevolution 90 miles from imperialism - we also know that we cannot fall intothese circumstances because it would mean the very end of the revolutionand falling into the worst situation, provoked by our enemies,full of hatred. But this is not the reason for making or trying to makethis profound analysis.